United States
                     Environmental Protection
                     Agency
  Pollution Prevention
  and Toxics
  (7407)
Spring/Summer 1997
EPA749-R-97-001a
                     Chemicals  in  the  Environment
                      Public Access Information
 International
 Chemicals
 Management
 U.S. EPA Leadership Strengthens International
    Environmental Safeguards
    Lynn R. Goldman, M.D., Assistant Administrator
    U.S. EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
In the global village of ecology and trade, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a
lead role in strengthening safeguards for human health
and the environment.

U.S.  leadership  is vital.   Pollution knows  no
boundaries, jeopardizing the Earth's interconnected
support system of air, water, and land. A world with a
depleted stratospheric ozone layer, significant climate
change, water shortages, contaminated drinking water,
overpopulation,  overdependence on fossil fuels,
desertification, and loss of biodiversity is inherently
unstable.

International work on chemicals occurs within this
context.   The pace of  development worldwide,
including the use of chemicals, is accelerating many of
these processes. Chemicals can provide many benefits
and are part of development, but there are risks when
the management and use are not sustainable.  As the
largest net exporter of chemicals in the world, the
United States has a responsibility to share its expertise
on toxic chemicals with other nations as a matter of
public health and environmental protection and national
security.

The agreement signed April 7 by EPA Administrator
Carol M. Browner and Canadian Minister of the
Environment Sergio Marchi to coordinate plans to
virtually eliminate persistent toxic substances in the
Great Lakes is the latest in a series of international
measures to increase public health and environmental
protection.

In concert with the State Department and other U.S.
agencies,  EPA  is  contributing  to  significant
environmental  advances  through  an  array of
international efforts, including the Intergovernmental
Forum on Chemical Safely (IFCS), created in 1994 in
response to a recommendation by the U.N. Conference
on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de
Janeiro.  The IFCS serves as the over-arching global
body for  promoting the environmentally  sound
management of chemicals.

-------
Chemicals in the Environment
                        Spring/Summer 1997
                  Contents

  U.S. EPA Leadership Strengthens
    International Environmental Safeguards
    Dr. Lynn Goldman
  A Global Strategy for Chemical Safety
  A New Generation of International
    Cooperation on Dangerous Chemicals
  tINEP Chemicals: The United: Nations
    Environment Programme's Chemical
    Management Program
  Environmental Issues Raised by International
    Trade Rules
  Harmonization of Classification and labeling
    Systems
  The OECD's Environmental Health and Safety
    Program
  EPA/OECD Test Guidelines Harmonization
  ISO 14000 Environmental Management
    Standards                   ,  .
  Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers:
    International Toxics Release Inventories
  The Commission for Environmental
    Cooperation: A North American Approach to
    Environmental Concerns
  Governments as Green Customers
  Non-Regulatory Initiatives and the Use of
    Ousters for Chemical Risk Reduction: An
  The Four-Corners Agreement: The U*S. and
    Canada Share Information on New
    Chemicals
  Measuring Air Pollution in the Great Lakes
    Region
  International Toxicologieal Profiles

  Chemicals in the  Environment:  fabJie Access
  Information is published by EPA*s Office of PoSuiion
  Prevention ana  Toxscs (OPPT) to increase  public
  awareness of and  access to  infoaaaiioH  qn toxle
  chemicals and pollution prevention available through
  OPPT. This resource is also available on the World WMe
  Web at nttp;//w\¥W,epa.goy/cie/

  Mailing address: Chemicals in the Environment Public
  Access Information, U. S. EPA, Office of Pollution
  Prevention and  Toxics (7407), 401  M  St, S.W.,
  Washington, DC 20460.

  Advisory Board
  Project Manager. Georgianne McDonald
  Publisher. Randall Brinkhuis
  Senior Editors: Odelia Funke, GeorgianneMcDonald
  OPPT Divisional Representatives:
  David DiFiore, CCD; Denise Kearnsj CMD; Dan Fort,
  EETD; Odelia Funke, 1MD; Ruth Heikkineu, PPD;
  Randall Brinkhuis, CSRAD; Mike McDoneB, EADjLetty
  Tahan, HERD. [Note: OPPT was recently reorganized
  (effective April 13, 1997). The Chemical Screening and
  Risk Assessment Division (CSRAD) and the  Health
  Effects Review Division (HERD) merged to become fee
  Risk Assessment Division  (RAD).   The  Chemical
  Management Division (CMD) was renamed the National
  Program Chemicals Division (NPCD)J[
OPPTS   is  the  National  Focal  Point  for
Chemicals Management in the United States

EPA's  Office of  Prevention,  Pesticides  and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS) led the U.S. delegation at the
creation of IFCS and serves on its Intersessional Group
and Standing Committee, which help guide its actions.
The Department of State has identified OPPTS as the
National Focal Point for chemicals management in the
United States, giving this office the responsibility for
coordination of technical issues across all U.S. agencies
that are responsible for chemicals management.

Coordinated international action is critical for dealing
with international problems, and important strides are
being made. In January, the Governing Council of the
United Nations  Environment Program (UNEP),  with
strong  support from  the U.S.,  voted  to begin
negotiations on a binding global convention, initially on
twelve persistent organic chemicals.

The U.N. Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE)
is developing a protocol under its Convention on Long-
Range Transboundary  Air Pollution  (LRTAP)  to
control persistent  organic   pollutants,  including
pesticides  and industrial chemicals and byproducts.  It
is developing a second protocol on heavy metals,
focusing on lead, mercury, and cadmium.
The  United  States  is  ^•"•^""•^™"™
working    with   other    OPPTS hw the
member countries of the    responsibility for
Organization      for    coordinating
Economic   Cooperation    technical issues
and Development (OECD)    across all K£
and      international    agencies that are
organizations to encourage    f^pOttSiUefor
firm  commitments  and    chemicajs
specific action to reduce              _ .
 *            .,    __       management.
unnecessary  risks  from  ^^m^
lead,   especially  those
involving children. The United States is also exploring
ways through IFCS members to expand lead reduction
globally on a country or regional basis.

With U.S. participation, the international community is
moving to make the voluntary Prior Informed Consent
procedures for banned or severely restricted substances
a  legally  binding instrument.   The  procedures are
carried out  by UNEP  and the  U.N.  Food and
Agriculture  Organization (FAO).  They  enable  all
importing countries to have the opportunity to make an

-------
  Issue No. 4
  informed decision before  accepting  or rejecting
  pesticides or industrial chemicals on the UNEP/FAO
  list  of banned or  severely  restricted  chemicals.
  Developing countries, in particular, stand to benefit.

  International harmonization of programs

  Harmonization efforts, such as OECD's Environmental
  Health and Safety Program,  are bearing fruit. EPA,
  through  OPPTS, heads  the U.S.  delegation, and,
  because of the Agency's longstanding involvement, the
  United States is experiencing environmental  and
  economic benefits from harmonizing chemical testing
  guidelines, promoting Good Laboratory Practices,
 sharing testing costs and safety data, and
 experiencing faster chemical approvals in
 some  instances —  while respecting
 concerns for animal rights.

 The  OECD  Pesticide Forum,  created  in
 1994, ties national pesticide regulators into many
 of these ongoing chemical activities and initiates
 new harmonization projects specific to pesticides,
 including harmonized data submission and  data
 review formats and risk reduction.

 Chemical industry support is needled

 But responsibility for  sound international
 management of chemicals does not rest with
 governments  alone.   The U.S. chemical
 industry,  as the world's largest exporter  of
 chemicals, has a responsibility to build global capacity
 for protecting public  health and  the environment
 commensurate with its economic impact. In 1995, U.S.
 chemical exports worldwide  totaled more  than $61
 billion, according to U.S. Commerce Department data,
 up 17.6 percent from 1994.

 The industry's support for OECD's testing program for
 high-volume-industrial chemicals and participation in
 the Chemical Manufacturers Association's Responsible
 Care™ program are examples  of steps needed.

Action by industry and others to prevent pollution,
reduce risk, and share environmental data to enable
public participation and informed decisionmaking is
  key   to   building   the  necessary  international
  infrastructure for sound environmental management and
  facilitation of trade.

  EPA responded  to  the recommendation  made  at
  UNCED  to  strengthen  national  capacities  and
  capabilities  by  working with  the  IFCS  and U.S.
  agencies  to develop  a   National   Profile   on
  Management of Chemicals in the United States.  The
  U.S. National Profile brings together information on all
  U.S.   chemical  safety  programs,  as   well  as
  representative state and non-governmental activities.
  The profile  is  available on EPA's  Web site at:
  http://www.epa.gov/opppspsl/profile

  International  environmental protection  underpins
     national and international security.  It is vital for
        continuing   growth   of    environmentally
         responsible trade. With EPA engagement in
         international efforts discussed in this issue of
         Chemicals in the Environment, the United
         States is  on the right  path for sustainable
         development and a secure future.
      Safeguarding children from environmental health
      hazards also needs to be an international priority
    in areas ranging from risk assessment and standard-
    setting to lead, drinking water,  and endocrine-
   disrupting  chemicals.  EPA Administrator Carol
  Browner carried this message to the Environment
  Ministers' meeting held in advance of the Denver
 Summit of the Eight — the G-7 countries and Russia.
 The  Environment Ministers adopted a resolution
 endorsing steps to protect children's environmental
 health and urged support by Summit leaders, who, for
 the first  time,  made an  explicit  commitment to
 safeguarding children's health.

 The well-being of children living today and generations
 to come is at the heart of sustainable development. The
 Clinton  Administration is strongly  committed to
 environmental and public health protection, particularly
 for children, and this  commitment encompasses not
 only children in the United States but children around
 the world.    The direction  supported by EPA
Administrator   Browner and   other  Environment
Ministers will contribute to a safer, healthier future for
children.

-------
Chemicals in the Environment
                                                                        Spring/Summer 1997
A Global Strategy for Chemical Safety
    Diane D. Beal, Ph.D., Deputy Counselor for International Affairs,  OPPTS
In June 1992, the United Nations General
Assembly convened the United Nations
Conference    on   Environment   and
Development  (UNCED)  to   elaborate
strategies and  measures to  halt  and
reverse the effects  of environmental
degradation. Among the major outputs of
UNCED is Agenda  21  which  is  a
blueprint for action in all major
areas affecting the relationship
between the environment  and
economy.

Chapter 19 of Agenda 21 lays
out the current global strategy to
promote   chemical    safety.
Specifically,   it   contains   six
program areas which are  meant to
ensure the  environmentally  sound
management of chemicals and calls for the
establishment  of an  intergovernmental forum  on
chemical safety and coordination of the efforts between
international organizations working on chemicals.

The six program areas recommended in Chapter 19 are:
(1) the expansion and acceleration of international
    assessment of chemical risks;
(2) the harmonization of classification and labeling of
    chemicals;
(3) information  exchange  on  toxic chemicals and
    chemical risks;
(4) establishment of risk reduction programs;
(5) the strengthening of  national  capabilities and
    capacities for management of chemicals; and
(6) the prevention of illegal  international  traffic in
    toxic and dangerous products.

UNCED recognized that the successful implementation
of these six program areas is dependent upon intensive
 international work and improved coordination of
 international activities.
    IFCS
                   The Intergovernmental Forum
                   for Chemical Safely (IFCS), or
                   Forum, was created in April of
                   1994 as the  mechanism  for
cooperation among governments for the promotion of
chemical risk  assessment and the  environmentally
                                                            sound management of chemicals.   The
                                                               International Program on Chemical
                                                               Safety (IPCS)  of the World Health
                                                               Organization (WHO) serves  as its
                                                               Secretariat.

                                                               The  Forum is a non-institutional
                                                               arrangement whereby representatives
                                                             of governments meet to consider and to
                                                         provide advice and, where appropriate, make
                                                       recommendation to governments, international
                                                   organizations, intergovernmental bodies, and non-
                                                  governmental organizations involved  in chemicals. In
                                                  fact, it works  closely with these different bodies to
                                                  integrate and consolidate efforts to promote chemical
                                                  safety and to  establish Priorities for Action which
                                                  indicate immediate  actions   and long-term goals
                                                  necessary to accomplish the six program areas listed
                                                  above.

                                                  The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound
                                                  Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in
                                                  1995 by the United Nations Environment Programme,
                                                  International  Labor Organization,  World Health
                                                  Organization,  Food  and  Agriculture Organization,
                                                  United Nations Industrial Development Organization,
                                                  and Organization for Economic Cooperation and
                                                  Development  following recommendations made by
                                                  UNCED.   Later, the United Nations Institute for
                                                  Training and Research   became  a participating
                                                  member. The purpose of the IOMC is to strengthen
                                                  cooperation and increase international coordination in
                                                  the field of chemical safety.  These organizations
                                                  working    together   help    implement    the
                                                  recommendations in Chapter 19 of Agenda 21 as laid
                                                  out in the Priorities for Action.
                                                 4

-------
Issue No. 4
      CEC
      CG/HCCS
      EMSs' '
      EPOC
      Etf
      FAD
      FIFJBA  ,,
      C3JJP   ,
      OLPs
      IADN
      IFCS
      IOMC
      IPGS
      IRPTC
      LRTAP
      MRA.
      MSWG
      NAFTA
      NPRI
      O3ECD
      OFF
     OPPT
     OPPTS
     PIC
     POP&
     PPD
     PKIK&
     RETC
     TRI
     TSCA"
     CNCETDG
     UNEP
     UNITAR
     WHO
     Abbreviations Used in TSis Issue

  Comttussion fer Environmental Cooperation
  Ceordinadag<5roup foFfieHafflionizatioii of Chemicals Classification Systems
  Envtremiaental Management Standards
 .Federal Iaseetkade,Fungicide, aadRo
-------
Chemicals in the Environment
                        Spring/Summer 1997
A "New Generation" of International Cooperation on Dangerous
    Chemicals
    l.L. "Pep" Fuller,  Counselor for International Affairs,  OPPTS
Introduction

In  recent  years,  policymakers  have  increasingly
recognized the global and transboundary dimensions of
harms posed by the manufacture, use and trade of
dangerous chemicals and substances.  These harms,
which affect both humans and wildlife, result from:
contamination of shared resources, such as air or
watersheds; migration across boundaries of "persistent
substances"  such as PCBs or DDT that do not break
down  quickly  in  the  environment;  exposure of
farmworkers to   dangerous  pesticides;  and  the
possibility of pesticide residues hi international food
supplies.

               Governments  have been working
               together on certain chemicals issues
               for many years, as illustrated by the
               Organisation    for     Economic
Cooperation and  Development (OECD) Chemicals
Programme, which began in the early 1980's, and the
UNEP-FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Prior Informed
Consent in the trade of chemicals, started in the late
1980's by the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP)  and  the  UN  Food  and  Agriculture
Organization (FAO).

The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED), more commonly referred
to as the Earth Summit, marked a major step forward in
this area.   In particular, Chapter 19 of the Earth
Summit's Agenda 21 —the "blueprint?' for action on
sustainable  development in the 21st century — sets
forth  a broad new  international agenda for the
environmentally sound management of chemicals.

In the years since the Earth Summit, two initiatives
have risen to the top of the international chemicals
agenda:   the  development  of a  legally  binding
international agreement  on Prior Informed Consent
(PIC); and the development of a legally binding
international  agreement  on  Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs).  The negotiation  of these new
agreements is being  accompanied by  a variety of
parallel,  and  hopefully complementary, regional
 actions.  Governments also have joined together to
 establish   a new  institutional  structure to  help
coordinate   these   efforts,   including  the   new
Intergovernmental Forum for Chemical Safety (IFCS).

Negotiation of a New Agreement on Prior Informed
Consent

The United States and other countries have participated
for many years hi a voluntary system of Prior Informed
Consent (PIC) for pesticides and industrial chemicals
that are banned or  severely restricted at the national
level.  In essence,  the PIC system  provides that the
governments of countries exporting PIC-listed pesticides
or chemicals must provide prior notice to, and receive
consent from, the governments of countries into which
those pesticides or chemicals are to be imported.

The voluntary system began hi the OECD.  It evolved
and was  later opened to all countries under the joint
sponsorship of UNEP and the FAO. The system has
been widely  embraced and now includes some  120
countries. It is designed to enhance information flow
regarding regulatory actions taken by nations, and to
ensure that importing countries have the opportunity to
make informed decisions on whether or not to receive a
substance that has been banned or severely restricted
elsewhere. This is especially important given the large
                volumes of international trade in
                dangerous pesticides and chemicals,
                and  the lack of well-developed
                regulatory   structures   in   many
                countries involved in this trade.

A major purpose of the  PIC is to  provide technical
support to countries, in particular developing countries
that do no yet have adequate  infrastructure to perform
sophisticated risk  assessments.  In effect, the  PIC
process acts as a collective risk assessment mechanism
for priority substances.  In addition, by calling upon
exporting countries to refrain from export in the absence
of notice and consent, the PIC system reinforces the
ability of importing countries (that lack infrastructure)
to enforce decisions they may take regarding substances
entering their countries.

In May 1995, the UNEP Governing Council called for
negotiations  to transform the existing, voluntary PIC
 system into a legally binding agreement. This decision

-------
 Issue No. 4
                                                                     Public Access Information
 builds upon earlier pronouncements of Agenda 21, the
 UN Commission on Sustainable Development, and the
 EFCS. To date, countries have held several negotiating
 sessions to develop a final PIC Agreement.  These
 negotiations build upon technical documents developed
 in meetings of experts in Geneva in 1994-1995.

                The  negotiations have raised some
                important issues. These include, for
                example:  What type  of  process
                should be required before a substance
                is included on  the PIC-list?  Is it
 enough if it is banned by one country only?  By five
 countries?   Does it need  to be reviewed  by an
 international expert body?  Or only by the interested
 Parties? Under what voting procedures? What should
 be the balance of rights and obligations  between
 importing and exporting countries? These and similar
 questions are expected to be dealt with in negotiations
 that should conclude within the next year.

 The United States has been actively involved in the
 negotiations, with representation from EPA's Office of
 Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS)
 as well as EPA's Office of General Counsel (OGC).
 This  involvement is  critical, in part because the
 negotiations  will affect both the Toxic  Substances
 Control Act  (TSCA) and  the Federal Insecticide,
 Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) since they do
 not require consent for export of covered products
 (although both laws do have certain notice provisions).
 Under both TSCA and FIFRA the United States has a
 long experience in notifying other nations of regulatory
 actions  regarding  industrial chemicals,  issuing
thousands of notifications. This experience suggests
certain conclusions:

•  For nations with inadequate infrastructure, more
   information  can   be  important but  does  not
   automatically lead to better results.

•  If a country does not have the capability to make its
   own detailed risk assessments, it may wish to rely
   on those  assessments made by countries which
   possess such capabilities.  In many cases, this will
   be an important way to support the efforts of those
   countries. Nevertheless, in some cases, this may
   not produce the best environmental or health result
   since different climatic or soil conditions, flora and
   fauna, disease vectors and conditions of use can
   result  in different  outcomes.   Reliance  on
   information  from  other  countries cannot be a
    complete  substitute  for  developing  appropriate
   ** infrastructure for a country or a region..

    For example, specific requirements on continued
    use of a pesticide in the U.S., such as the use of
    protective clothing  or respirators may not  be
    available in a developing country. As a result,
    approval for use in that country might create risks
    not present in the United States.

 •   In view of the  lack  of infrastructure  in  many
    countries, it is of critical importance to concentrate
    the PIC process  on those chemicals which pose
    serious threats  to health or the  environment.
    Information  on  chemicals  which  have  been
    regulated anywhere  should  be made available
    internationally, but not necessarily as  part of the
    mandatory PIC process.   Otherwise the  process
    could swamp a country's available resources.

As is generally the case under international agreements,
the U.S. will use domestic laws and regulations as the
primary basis to achieve implementation at the domestic
level.  Given mat FIFRA and TSCA do not now require
both notice and  consent procedures prior to  export,
careful attention will be needed to ensure that sufficient
domestic authority exists to implement the anticipated
PIC agreement, and that actions are undertaken in a
transparent and open process.
   Regional   actions    taken    on
   chemical safety

   Some of the regional  actions taken, under
   international auspices include:
   »   the negotiation of Protocols m. Persistent
      Organic  Pollutants  (POPs) and.  heavy
      metala under: the United Nations Economic
      Commission   for   Europe  (UN/ECB)
      Convention on Long Range Transport of
      Air Pollution (LRTAP);
   •   the 1995 Resolution for Environmeatally
      Sound Management of Chemicals under the
      North   American   Commission    for
      Environmental Cooperation (CEC); and
   *   the Joint IXS.-Canada Binational Strategy
      for Virtual Elimination of Persistent Toxic
      Substances in the Great Lakes Basin.

-------
Chemicals in the Environment
                                                    Spring/Summer 1997
Negotiation of a New Agreement on Persistent
Organic Pollutants (POPs)

In parallel to the negotiation of an agreement on Prior
Informed Consent, nations have recently committed to
negotiate a set of stringent controls on a short list of
especially dangerous chemicals and substances known
as persistent organic pollutants, or POPs.

Discussions within the United  Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) in the early
1990's provided an important
stimulus  for  international
cooperation on POPs. Experts
have undertaken much valuable
work in this forum, including on
criteria  for selection of POPs.     Indeed,
the current United Nations short-list of 12
POPs for initial action was  derived in large
measure from  these  efforts.   The UN/ECE
countries are now negotiating a POPs Protocol to
the  1979  UN/ECE  Agreement  on Long  Range
Transport of Air Pollutants (LRTAP).

In 1994, the meetings of the UN  Commission for
Sustainable Development helped bring these issues to
a more  global forum.  In a key  meeting in Manila in
1996, experts of the IFCS  developed  a  series of
conclusions and recommendations regarding  the
development of a global POPs  agreement, that were
forwarded on to the  UNEP Governing Council. In
January-February, 1997, the UNEP Governing Council
formally approved the negotiation of a legally binding
instrument on POPs, picking up many of the points
developed at the Manila meeting.

The POPs agreement is expected to  go beyond
provisions for notice and consent  in the context of
trade, and focus more directly on production and use.
                             At the 1996 meeting in Manila, the IFCS recommended,
                             among other things, that the POPs instrument provide
                             for the phasing out  of the production and use of
                             intentionally  produced  POPs,  subject to  narrow
                             provisions  relating   to  available alternatives  and
                             recognized uses. It also called for strong measures to be
                             developed to address unintentionally produced POPs
                             such as dioxins and furans.

                                          The POPs negotiations are likely to
                                           raise a number of challenging issues,
                                             including: the precise nature of the
                                             control obligations on the initial list
                                             (for example, how to address the
                                           still  existing use of DDT to combat
                                          malaria?);  the  criteria  and voting
                                            structure for adding new substances to
                                            the  list;  the  use  of trade/export
                                            controls;  provisions  for technical
                                           cooperation and support to implement
                               the agreement (especially for developing countries);
                             and provisions to address existing stockpiles of POPs.

                             At the domestic level, the U.S. will need to examine
                             closely its legislative authorities as it develops its
                             measures and actions for implementation. One question
                             of particular significance relates to possible production
                             bans or controls on POPs-listed pesticides. As currently
                             structured, FIFRA does not provide the domestic legal
                             authority  to  ban the manufacture of pesticides for
                             export.

                             A separate challenge — and opportunity — will be to
                             coordinate the multilateral POPs effort with  other
                             initiatives at the regional level, including the UN ECE
                             POPs Protocol and actions under the North American
                             Commission for Environmental Cooperation Resolution
                             on the Sound Management of Chemicals.
    Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Recognized by
    the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
    Aldrin
    Chlordane
    DDT
    Dieldrin
DioxCns and furans
Endrin
Heptachlor
Hexachforobenzene
Mlrex
PofychJorinated btphenyJs
  (PCBs)
Toxaphene
From one perspective, these
initiatives  will  offer  an
opportunity to elaborate on
the commitments developed
at the  global  level,  and
translate them into concrete
measures    to    achieve
implementation.
                                                8

-------
 Issue No. 4
 UNEP Chemicals: The United Nations Environment Programme's
     Hazardous Chemicals Management Program
     James Willis, Director, UNEP Chemicals
 UNEP Chemicals  is  the  center for all  activities
 undertaken by the United  Nations Environment
 Programme (UNEP) to ensure the  global  sound
 management of hazardous chemicals.  Located in
 Geneva, Switzerland, it is built upon the solid technical
 foundation of the International Register of Potentially
 Toxic Chemicals (IRPTC).

 UNEP Chemicals'  main functions  are to promote
 chemical safely by providing countries with access to
 information on toxic chemicals, by assisting countries
 in building their capacities to produce, use, and dispose
 of chemicals safely, and by facilitating global actions
 that may be needed to reduce or eliminate chemical
 risks.

 Chemicals  are essential for  continued economic
 development.   Globally, production  and  trade  in
 chemicals is measured in  the  trillions of dollars.
 Chemical production or use is a crucial component of
 virtually every sector of our economies, and all of us in
 some way come into daily contact with chemicals.
 While most of these chemicals are benign at the levels
 to which people are usually exposed, others present
 risks to human health and the environment.

 In the case of chemicals, sustainable development
 means the continuation of global production and use of
 chemicals,   while  at the same time reducing or
 eliminating unsustainable risks from those chemicals or
 activities.

 Sustainable development  requires a global capacity for
 the  sound management of chemicals.   National
 capacities exist within most industrial countries, but
 usually to a more limited extent elsewhere.   One
 component of building global capacity is to extend the
 sound management of chemicals to all countries; that
 is, to take steps to ensure that all countries have the
 needed information, expertise, and resources to manage
 chemicals safely under the conditions of production or
 use in that country.

 The other facet of global capacity is ensuring that the
necessary global actions are taken to address risks that
are not captured by  national actions alone.  Certain
aspects of commerce, use, or environmental release of
chemicals requires concerted global action to ensure
 risks are sufficiently reduced.  Achieving these goals
 requires a global chemicals program.
 The most  important UNEP actions during 1997 to
 catalyze global action for the sound management of
 chemicals are:

 Facilitating development of a legally binding instrument
 for the application of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC)
 procedure.   Negotiations have begun, convened by
 UNEP  jointly  with the  Food  and  Agriculture
 Organization (FAO),  and are expected to conclude by
 the end of 1997. The existing voluntary PIC program
 implemented by UNEP and FAO under the London
 Guidelines and the FAO Code of Conduct will continue
 pending development of the legally binding instrument.

 Convening an intergovernmental negotiating committee
 for the development of a legally binding instrument to
 implement international action on Persistent Organic
 Pollutants (POPs).    In addition to facilitating  the
 development of a global POPs convention, UNEP is
 undertaking immediate action on a number of measures
to help address  persistent toxic  chemicals into  the
environment.

   These measures include promoting the exchange of
   information and expertise among governments on
   POPs; providing guidance on alternatives to POPs;
   assisting  countries  in  the   identification  of
   polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), including those
   in use, in stockpiles, and in waste, as well as helping
   to identify  where  PCBs can be destroyed safely;
   assisting countries in identifying sources of dioxin
   and  furan  releases;  and  continuing  to better
   characterize the full extent of the global POPs
   problem.

-------
Chemicals in the Environment
                        Spring/Summer 1997
In the field of capacity building, UNEP Chemicals'
work is implemented in two key areas:

   Promoting information access through the delivery
   of information and information tools for countries to
   use  in assessing and  managing the risks  of
   chemicals. Activities hi this area include:

   •  ERPTC's databank, which is  available  in a
     personal   computer  version  that  contains
     extensive safety data on over 8,000 chemicals;
   •  Internet    and     hard-copy     information
     clearinghouses on chemical hazards, pollutant
     release and transfer registers (PRTRs), POPs,
     and PIC;
   •  published inventories of information sources
     covering international data sources on chemicals,
     critical reviews  of chemicals, new chemical
     assessments (in progress), and national data on
     existing chemicals (in progress); and
  •  extensive publications  in the field of chemical
     safety.

  Direct work with countries in building capacities,
  including awareness  raising,  training, capacity
  building  exercises,   and hotline support  for
  governments.     UNEP  actively  sponsors  or
  participates in over 20 capacity building workshops
  on chemicals management each year.   These take
  place on the regional, sub-regional, and national
  level,  and  cover such  diverse  topics  as  risk
  assessment,  development of national  information
  systems, chemicals legislation, and operation of the
  PIC procedure.
                                i United Nations Environment Programme
                                ' Programma des Nations Unles pour rEnvironnemerrt
More information on the UNEP Chemicals Programme can be obtained by contacting:
Mr. James B. Willis, Director
UNEP Chemicals (ffiPTC)
15 Chemin des Anemones
Case Postale 356
CH-1219, Chatelaine
Geneva, Switzerland
Telephone:    41229799111
Telefax::      41 22 797 3460
E-Mail:       irptc@unep.ch
Homepage:    http://irptc.unep.ch/irptc/
 Environmental Issues Raised by International Trade Rules
        Peter L. Lallas, Office of General Counsel, International Environmental Law Office
 In recent years,  a number of events have served to
 demonstrate the  strong, and not always harmonious,
 connection   between   international   trade   and
 environmental protection.  The initial catalysing event
 was the 1991 decision of an international dispute panel
 that provisions of the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection
 Act violated international trade rules (the so-called
Tuna-Dolphin  decision).   The  question  of the
relationship  between trade rules and environmental
protection also was prominent in the negotiation of the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and
related environmental instruments (1992-1993), and in
the negotiation of a new set of world trade agreements
in the so-called Uruguay Round of multilateral trade
negotiations (concluding in 1994).

The new trade agreements, in particular, contain a
number of important and legally-binding provisions of
potential relevance to environmental policy. Subject to
certain exceptions, these include the following:

•    Non-Discrimination:   A  country may  not
     "discriminate" against imported products by giving
     them less favorable treatment than the "like"
     domestic product, or less favorable treatment than
                                                10

-------
 Issue No. 4
        that accorded to products from "most-favored-
        nation" trading partners;
      No Quantitative Restrictions: A country may
      not  impose restrictions  on  the quantity  of
      imported products;
      No More Trade Restrictive than Required:  A
      country must ensure that product standards and
      food  safety measures are  "not more  trade
     pbjective (as defined);
     Us^  - ~                        	__
        |uct standards and food safety measures must
        "based on "international standards," except
              ; international standard fails to meet the
                                                     Questions also have been raised about whether trade
                                                     restrictions connected with international environmental
                                                     agreements, such as the Montreal Protocol restrictions
                                                     on trade with non-parties or provisions of the Basel
                                                     Convention on the Transboundary Movements of
                                                     Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, might run into
                                                     conflict with the trade rules. Similar questions could
                                                     arise in the context of future anticipated agreements,
                                                     such as a new international agreement on Prior Informed
                                                     Consent (PIC) procedures for certa^S^eTproducts
                                                                                          and^ROPs
                                                    agreements, page six].

            	. „	„„ ^^ ^ U1W1- m^   Other environmental concernsjvith respect
            's own legitimate objectives (including its   should also be  noted.   Ctae^Jwhemer i
            "triA** tj-«r.i-»1 n.-C*«.A.f-AAJ^	\.                  flfWn/YfYltr» m^rtTirfk 1v*t1fA«4 4-* -fc-Jijl — t*f	»*^* .1*
         i chosen level of protection);
         |nce and Risk Assessment for Food Safety
          sures:  A country's food safely measures
     m i  be based on a risk assessment, and not be
     faalntained   without  "sufficient
                                                                                                  be
                                                    economic growth linked to ^v^^^uuii wm oe
                                                    environmentally-sound (suclL.as,, "for examp%, new
                                                    economic activity in ftf TJ.S.-Ktexicp border areaTaiked
                                                    to NAFTA).  Anothli^whejpr frade and ecMmic
                                         scientific   integration might leaBi t6so-$  ^JA-^^i****2-J_	t	J.  XtJ*     N.
     prof-ides a possible defense against challenges to
            1 measures under the various trade rules.
Froml
concern
applied
(or 01
envir
     Igelerally
Thesl iriplude,
or pesticides du
restribtilns on
   . J .. i
   .  ,.   •    °n
emissio
tradeirules are desi
andim
                                                               issues,
                                                             ,      ~
                                                             lons'arfr n
                                       vss' 3¥^***c?- «g?  «»  *    ^^^*^i *  & ^^^%
          environmental policy perspective; thejfe Is   the^ envirbttmeaital
         •*— these and oliejt.rtrade rules"mISht be ^inciu^the^J^Es
             what
         |lde rules toj
    concerns.  Thes
   1  «&»„ < tM    %
    Cpmniiitee 8n T;
.QrgaVnsation for EC;
                                                                                                   ,
                                                                        p on Sus&i^able|»eveiopment.
                                                                         J  l*3S     I
                                                   >-,T^4  »              -  ^
                                                   lPAW^           pjayecTJcey  rofes
                                                   discussions. J%e^joTned,(iirf otfy in the pegotaion of
                                                    ade ^"4 "l^&ilpsmentejvhere they      to
                                                .,  'P^W1 and slreqg^ien^,^ negotmting positio^n the
                  fved,fbelefficiency,*HBecaiiseitne JMFTA^d.thellmg&ayJRDund. EPA las aS been
                  iedtoremov^"J>arrierstotade,"   instrumental in developing the overall  U.St policy
                                                 * fi^fwoifc-toltdaresl iehese issues. Key elements have
                                                   b,eett^c6iupletioi» of env,irc>rii5ie»tal rej:iews,bf Jrade
                                                   agreements;  negotiation of   provisions  in trade
                                                   agreeements to safeguard the integrity of environmental
                                                   policy  measures;  development of  environmental
                                                   initiatives, in parallel to trade initiatives, to address the
                                                   types of concerns noted above; direct involvement of
                                                   environmental  officials  in trade  discussions  and
                                                   negotiations; and public involvement.
                   legal obligaS
        ^^^^J*^f^^^^^™"»  -  ^-^
-------
Chemicals in the Environment
                        Spring/Summer 1997
EPA  officials continue to  engage in new
initiatives. These include, among others: the
negotiation  of a  new Multilateral
Agreement on Investment (MAI) in
the OECD;  negotiations  on the
subject   of   Mutual   Recognition
Agreements between the U.S. and
the European Union; and trade and
 environment issues relevant to the negotiation of the
new PIC agreement and other international instruments.

At the domestic level, EPA has  developed a greatly
increased capacity to  analyze  and  respond  to
environment and trade issues as they arise.  There
exists an Agency-wide Task Force on  Environment
and  Trade,  dedicated  to  addressing these issues.
Several  EPA offices,  including the Office  of
Prevention,   Pesticides,  and   Toxic   Substances,
participate actively hi this work.  Within the EPA
Office of General Counsel, there is an  Environment
and Trade Team designed to support the activities of
the   Task  Force  and strengthen  the ability of the
Agency to address connections between EPA initiatives
and  the  trade agreements.   Recently, this team
developed a checklist item that is now included in the
                EPA  Regulation  Tiering  Form,
              which   provides    guidance    to
            regulation-development teams on  the
           types of questions they need to consider
     to hi light of existing trade rules as they develop
   their regulations.

The trade and environment debate is a complex one.
Internationally, important differences remain among
countries hi how they view the connection between
environmental protection and removing barriers to trade.
Many countries remain steadfastly  opposed  to  any
modifications that might "weaken" the stringency of the
trade rules in response to certain environmental policy
concerns. Domestically, there remains the challenge of
finding the right balance to promote underlying policy
objectives, of abiding by our international obligations,
and of ensuring that the inexorable movement toward a
more global economy, characterized by open trade and
economic  integration, occurs in a manner consistent
with environmental policy objectives, in support of
sustainable development.  There has been important
progress toward common ground, but it is not an easy
path.
 Harmonization of Classification and Labeling Systems
     Diane D. Beal, Ph.D., Deputy Counselor for International Affairs, OPPTS
 Many governments, including the U.S. Government,
 feel that a uniform way to communicate hazards is
 critical as international trade and production increases.
 Because of this, governments  participating in  the
                 United  Nations  Conference  on
                 Environment  and  Development
                      (UNCED) in 1992 adopted an
                              international
                              mandate to pursue a
                              globally harmonized
                      classification and   labeling
                 system  (Section  B,  Chapter  19,
                 Agenda 21). They thought that the
                 simplest and most efficient way to
                      indicate how to handle and use
                              chemicals  safely is
                             i to   have   proper
                               labeling      of
 chemicals and safety data sheets, based on assessed
 hazards to health and the  environment.  They also
 recognized that proper classification of chemicals is an
 important tool in establishing a labeling system.  Their
 goal  is  to  have a  globally  harmonized hazard
 classification and compatible labeling system by the
 year 2000.

 Governments, several international organizations and
 many non-governmental organizations are  presently
 working together on  developing  such  a  globally
 harmonized system. The Intergovernmental Forum on
 Chemical Safety (IFCS) is monitoring and providing
 broad guidance while member organizations of the Inter-
 Organization Program on  Sound Management  of
 Chemicals (IOMC) are involved  in the process  of
 accomplishing the work. Under the auspices of IOMC,
 the Coordinating Group for  the  Harmonization  of
 Chemicals  Classification  Systems  (CG/HCCS)  is
                                                12

-------
   Issue No. 4
                                                                           Public Access information
  managing the process and is charged with elaborating
  the voluntary instrument recommended by the BFCS. It
  has adopted a series of principles to guide the work of
  the various organizations involved.

  The technical work on harmonization is being done by
  different  international  organizations  with  specific
  expertise in the areas involved. The International Labor
  Organization (ILO) and the United Nations Committee
  of Experts on Transportation of Dangerous Goods
  (UNCETDG) are responsible for developing the criteria
  for classifying  chemicals based  on their physical/
  chemicals properties; the Organization for Economic
  Cooperation and Development (OECD) is responsible
  for developing criteria for health and environmental
  hazards; and the ILO is responsible for developing the
  approach to communicating the hazards.

  The U.S. is playing a critical role in this international
  effort, including chairing the CG/HCCS. The State
  Department coordinates an interagency work group to
  develop the United States' position.  Members of the
  work group  include representatives  from all of the
  agencies that regulate in the area of chemical safety and
 health: Environmental Protection Agency (lead office:
 OPPTS),   Occupational    Safety   and    Health
 Administration,  Food  and  Drug  Administration,
 Department  of Transportation,  Consumer Product
 Safety  Commission,  and the  Food  Safety  and
 Inspection Service. Other agencies that are interested
 or involved in trade and policy aspects of the issue also
 participate, including the Department of Commence
 and the U.S. Trade Representative. The work group has
 adopted principles  which guide the activities of the
 various  agencies  in the  international harmonization
 process.

 Over the past several years, much progress has been
 made with regard to the technical criteria for hazard
 classification. Work has also began on development of
 a binding instrument in which the harmonized system
 could be made available for adoption or ratification by
 countries. Consideration is also being given to how to
 maintain  the system when  it is completed. Once the
 international system is completed, the U.S. will have to
 decide on how the new system will be applied in this
 country.  The government  will need to  develop and
consider legal alternatives for adoption of the system.
In fact, legislation may be needed to ensure that all
agencies can adopt the new global system.
 For more information

 On April 3,1997, a notice concerning U.S. government
 activities dealing with international harmonization of
 chemical safety and health information was published in
 the Federal Register (62 FR15951) as State Department
 Public Notice 2526, "Bureau of Oceans and International
 Environmental and  Scientific  Affairs; International
 Harmonization  of  Chemical  Safety  and  Health
 Information."

 The notice discusses both international and interagency
 activities in the area of harmonization of chemical safety
 and health information. It lists U.S. goveiment agencies'
 guiding principles and international principles for such
 harmonization. The deadline for comments was June 2
 1997.

 For information regarding this notice, please contact:
 Trigg Talley,  Office of Environmental Policy, U.S
 Department of State,  OES/ENV  Room 4325, 2201 C
 Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20520; Telephone: (202)
 647-9266,   FAX:   (202)   647-5947;   E-mail:
 ttalley@state.gov.

For information about activities of the following groups,
please contact the person listed:

   Interorganization  Programme  for  the Sound
   Management of Chemicals' (IOMC) Coordinating
   Group  for the  Harmonization  of  Chemical
   Classification Systems: Jennifer Silk, Directorate of
   Health Standards Programs, Occupational Safety and
   Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue,
   NW,  Room N3718, Washington,  DC,  20210;
   Telephone: (202) 219-7056; FAX: (202) 219-7068;
   E-mail: jsilk@osha-slc.gov.

   Organization for  Economic  Cooperation  and
   Development's   (OECD)  Advisory  Group  on
   Harmonization: Amy Rispin,  Office of Pesticide
   Programs,   Environmental Protection  Agency,
   Washington, DC, 20460; Telephone: (703) 305-
   5989;   FAX:    (703)   305-6244;   E-mail:
   rispin.amy@epamail.epa.gov.

   United Nations' Committee of Experts on the
   Transport of Dangerous Goods' (UNCETDG): Frits
  Wybenga,   Research   and   Special  Programs
  Administration, Department of Transportation, 400
  7th Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20590, Telephone-
  (202)  366-0656; FAX: (202) 366-5713; E-mail:
  frits.wybenga@rspa.dot.gov.
                                                   13

-------
Chemicals in the Environment
                                                                       Spring/Summer 1997
OECD'S Environmental Health and Safety Program
    Charles M. Auer, Director, Chemical Control Division, OPPT
The  Organization for  Economic  Cooperation and
Development  (OECD)  is  an  intergovernmental
organization which includes 29 democratic countries
with advanced market economies hi Asia, Europe,
North America, and the Pacific. Founded hi 1960, the
OECD promotes: economic growth, employment, and
social welfare hi OECD countries; free trade between
OECD countries  and  non-member countries;  and
economic growth in non-member countries.

OECD's  work is overseen  by several policy  and
administrative bodies.   At the highest level  is the
OECD Council, made up of ambassadors from OECD
member  countries.  The Council's main role is to
review and  approve the OECD's budget and work
program. It also has the ability to enact Council
Decisions and Council Recommendations. The former
legally bind Member countries to a particular course of
action, while the latter strongly encourage collaborative
action.  OECD Decisions and Recommendations are
made by its member countries operating  through a
consensus-based process.

At a more  technical  level, work in the  OECD  is
directed  by specialized committees composed of
representatives from OECD member countries.  The
Environmental Health and Safety Program
is directed  by the  Environment Policy
Committee (EPOC) and the Joint Meeting.
 of the Chemicals Group and Management
 Committee.  Dr. Lynn Goldman, Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Prevention,
 Pesticides and Toxic  Substances,  is the
 U.S. Head  of Delegation  at the Joint
 Meeting level.

 OECD's Environmental Health and Safety
 Program has been working on chemical
 safety since 1971. At the outset, the OECD's program
 focused  on specific industrial chemicals known to pose
 significant health or environmental problems, such as
 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury. By the
 mid-1970s, however, it became clear that  a more
 broadly-based approach was needed.  The OECD
 countries agreed mat a comprehensive, forward-looking
 strategy was needed  to identify and manage the
 potential risks of both new and existing chemicals.
 The Program thus began developing methods and tools
 that countries could use to assess and manage the risks
of all chemicals. Outstanding examples of these tools
include the OECD Test Guidelines and the OECD
Principles of Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs). In
1981, these formed the basis for the OECD Council
Decision  on Mutual Acceptance of Data (MAD).
Under the MAD Decision, test data developed in
accordance with OECD Test Guidelines and GLPs
must be accepted for review by other OECD member
countries.

During the 1980's,  new projects were launched to
develop  hazard  and  risk assessment  methods,
approaches to risk management, and procedures for
chemical accidents and emergency response. Member
countries  also undertook  to  facilitate  information
exchange among themselves.

In the early 1990's, OECD initiated projects to "share
the  burden"  of testing and  assessment of  high
production  volume   chemicals   (the  Screening
Information Data Set or SIDS program), harmonize
classification and labeling systems, and address the
products  of modern biotechnology.  The  OECD
Pesticide Forum was established to allow pesticide
regulatory authorities in Member countries to discuss
issues of common interest.
 One of the OECD's important achievements in this
 period was the 1996 Ministerial Declaration calling on
 countries to continue and strengthen efforts to reduce
 risks from exposure to lead.  During this time, the
 OECD and its Member countries also joined efforts to
 implement the recommendations of Chapter 19  of
 Agenda 21 from the 1992 United Nations Conference
 on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de
 Janeiro.
                                                14 —•

-------
  Issue No. 4
  Today, the Environmental Health and Safely Program
  continues to support OECD member countries in then-
  testing, assessment, and management of chemicals
  and pesticides. As the valuable work of the program
  has  demonstrated,  harmonization  and international
                        cooperation  remain effective ways  to  increase
                        government  efficiency, improve  health  and the
                        environment, and promote free trade and a healthy
                        global economy.
                                Member Countries of the
           Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
                                       (as of early 1997)
   Australia
   Austria
  Belgium
   Canada
   The Czech Republic
   Denmark
   Finland -
   France
.Germany
 Greece
 Hungary
 Iceland  ,
 Ireland,
 Italy
 Japan
 The Republic of Korea
 Luxembourg
 Mexico
 The Netherlands
 New Zeatend
, Norway
 Poland
 Portugal
 Spain
   The European Commission also takes part in the work of the OECB,
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
The United Kingdom
The United States
  of America
 EPA/OECD Test Guidelines Harmonization
     Michael C. Cimino, Ph.D., Risk Assessment Division, OPPT
 The guidelines harmonization project is a multi-year
 effort to harmonize the existing test guidelines of the
 Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) and
 of the Office of Pesticides Programs (OPP) into a
 single set  of guidelines for EPA/OPPTS  (Office of
 Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic  Substances). The
 project then harmonizes the OPPTS guidelines with
 those of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
 and  Development (OECD).  These  guidelines are
 important because they set standards for acceptable
 testing which EPA and our OECD counterparts may
 require of companies when we review chemicals.

 International harmonization of test guidelines is a high
 priority of the Assistant Administrator for OPPTS. The
 goal of such harmonization is to reduce the burden of
 repeated testing from chemical  companies to meet
 differing requirements  and to  foster international
 efficiency  of  information  exchange and  mutual
 acceptance of test data.  The OPPT/OPP project began
 in 1991 and is nearing completion. The harmonization
effort with OECD has been ongoing since 1989.
                       OPPT has published 97 guidelines in the areas of
                       physical chemistry,  ecotoxicity, environmental fate,
                       and human health. OECD has published 77 guidelines
                       in the same four areas. OPP has a total of 170 test
                       guidelines which include guidelines for the above four
                       areas as well as for other specific requirements for
                       OPP's evaluation of pesticides (e.g., product identity,
                       composition, application exposure).  Presently, all of

-------
Chemicals in the Environment
                       Spring/Summer 1997
physical/chemical properties and environmental fate
guidelines, 30  health  effects guidelines and six
ecotoxicity test  guidelines  have been  harmonized
between EPA and OECD. Ten health effects guidelines
and 13 ecotoxiciry guidelines have been harmonized
between OPPT and OPP to produce guidelines which
are unique to OPPTS.

Significant advances in  scientific  knowledge and
methodologies are now being incorporated into the
guidelines.  This is  particularly true in the areas of
neurotoxicity,   developmental neurotoxicity,  and
developmental and reproductive biology.  OPPT is
currently  leading the  effort  to harmonize these
improved guidelines with OECD.

The OPP Scientific  Advisory  Panel (SAP) reviewed
ecotoxicity and health effects test guidelines in May
and October  1996, respectively. OPP  is revising
these guidelines revised in light of SAP comments.
The revised guidelines  will be made available to the
public through the EPA web site or  the Government
Printing Office (GPO) web site. Diskettes or hard copy
may also be purchased from GPO.
Cooperative efforts in harmonization between OPPTS
and OECD, as noted above, have been underway for a
number of years. In 1989, OECD gave high priority to
revision of the OECD Guidelines for genetic toxicology
in its "periodical review" process. Guideline proposals
were circulated for review starting  in July of 1991.
U.S. experts in the field of genetic toxicology were
given these drafts for comment. After several rounds
of review at the national and international levels,
proceeding concurrently with OPP/OPPT review, the
final proposals were submitted to and endorsed by
OECD.   These genetic  toxicology guidelines are
currently undergoing translation into French before
official release by the OECD. At that time OECD will
make them available in print form and on the OECD
website at: http://www.oecd.org

The OPPTS Harmonized Test   Guidelines  can
be   found    on   the   EPA   web    site    at:
http://www.epa.gov/OPPTSJLarmonized/ or   can
be    accessed   through    GPO   Access    at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/ .   To order copies from
GPO, call (202) 512-1800.
 ISO 14000 Environmental Management Standards
     Mary McKiel, Pollution Prevention Division, OPPT
 The Pollution Prevention Division (PPD) of the Office
 of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is helping
 to lead the way for the EPA on the development and
 use of the ISO  14000 environmental management
 standards (EMSs). ISO 14000 is the name given for a
 series  of  voluntary  international  environmental
 standards, which cover environmental management
 systems.    These  systems  govern  environmental
 auditing,  labeling, performance evaluation, life cycle
 assessment, and environmental aspects in the setting of
 product standards.   This article will  outline the
 potential  of these standards to suppport pollution
 prevention goals, EPA's formal policy towards ISO
 14000, and discuss the  opportunities and concerns
 OPPT has with the ISO standards.

 EPA policy regarding the development of the
 ISO 14000 standards

 The Voluntary Standards Network was established by
 EPA  Administrator Carol  Browner in  1993  to
 coordinate all of the Agency's ISO  14000 activities.
 The Offices of Water, Research and Development, and
 Enforcement  and Compliance Assurance partnered
 with the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to
 found the Network, which OPPT administers.  To
 date, there are over 150 members of the Network
 representing all of the Offices and Regions.

 One of important current undertakings of the Network
 is the formulation of  a draft EPA  formal policy
 statement concerning ISO  14000 and EMSs.  The
 Network's drafting committee has nearly completed
 its work and expects the draft policy to be available by
 June.

 The ISO guidance standards for  labeling, life cycle
 assessment,   and   environmental   performance
 evaluation also have the attention and interest of the
 Agency.   EPA is represented on each of the ISO
  14000 subcommittees through the corresponding U.S.
  technical advisory subgroups (subTAGs). Several of
  the labeling  standards, as well  as the life cycle
  standards, are almost in the final stages  prior to
                                                 16

-------
  Issue No. 4
 publication.  There are some concerns about how these
 standards will affect the Agency's efforts underway in
 Consumer Labeling  as well as positions that EPA
 continues to take in  the World Trade Organization.
 The Standards Network is currently working with the
 EPA Trade and Environment Task Force, administered
 through the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
 (OPPE), to address such concerns and provide policy
 guidance on these issues to program offices and to EPA
 members of the ISO 14000 committees.

 On behalf of EPA,  OPPT is participating  in the
 development of the  ISO  14000  standards.  At the
 annual ISO  14000 Technical Committee meeting in
 Kyoto, Japan, OPPT representatives joined delegates
 from around the world who gathered to continue their
 work negotiating the  development of the ISO 14000
 standards. Some  standards in the ISO 14000 series
 have already been set.   The  14001  standards  on
 management systems  and its accompanying guidance
 standards, 14004, along with the auditing standards are
 already published and available.  The 14001 standard
 specifies commitment  to "prevention of pollution" as a
 required element of an organization's  environmental
 policy.

 OPPT sees ISO 14000  as  a  pollution
 prevention tool

 Pollution   prevention  goals   and  the  National
 Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
 (NTTAA) drive OPPT's involvement in ISO 14000.
 EPA prefers innovative strategies including processes,
 technologies, or management practices mat prevent
 rather than control pollution.

 OPPT views environmental management standards like
 ISO 14000 as a potentially powerful tool to achieve
 pollution  prevention  goals.   NTTAA requires all
 federal  agencies   to  use voluntary  standards  in
 procurement  and regulatory activities as a means of
 carrying out policy objectives or other actions, unless
 the use of these standards would be inconsistent with
 applicable law or impracticable. In addition, agencies
 must participate in the development of voluntary
 standards  when such  participation is  in the public
 interest.

 OPPT feels ISO 14000 presents the opportunity for
 industry to cost effectively accomplish the goals of
pollution prevention  via a multi-media  approach
that can integrate business goals  and environmental
 objectives.  OPPT is  working with a  variety of
 stakeholders  to develop  methods for  verifying
 environmental performance goals in such areas as
 compliance and pollution prevention that result from
 application of an environmental management system.

 In order to better represent national needs in ISO
 14000  activities, EPA  is coordinating with  many
 groups to incorporate the perspectives and needs of
 various sectors.  Two EPA representatives participate
 in a Multi-State Work Group (MSWG) for ISO 14001,
 the standard for management systems.

 The MSWG is developing a matrix of performance
 indicators to test the impact of an ISO 14001-based
 EMS in a variety of pilot projects across ten states.
 Project designers will use the matrix to record data,
 which will be  included in  a  national data base of
 information drawing on measurements from across
 media,  across   states  and across  pilot  projects.
 Pollution prevention indicators are a major section of
 the matrix. In addition, the MSWG draws upon the
 enforcement and compliance  matrix of  indicators
 currently under development by EPA's  Office of
 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

 OPPT is also working with the National Pollution
 Prevention Roundtable  to  develop segments  on
 pollution prevention that can be incorporated into ISO
 14000 training courses.  The Roundtable and OPPT
 hope to gradually introduce the pollution prevention
 hierarchy into the normal, accepted approach that any
 organization would  take in  order to  meet  the
 requirement of the  standard.   The  1990  Pollution
 Prevention Act defines pollution prevention as source
reduction which is the most preferred activity in a
hierarchy. The pollution prevention hierarchy affirms
the principles of preventing pollution at the source
rather than controlling it once it is created, and  of
reusing or recycling goods when possible, so that we
rely upon treatment and safe disposal as a final
alternative.
                                                17

-------
Chemicals in the Environment
                       Spring/Summer 1997
Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs): International Toxics
    Release Inventories
    John Harman, Environmental Assistance Division, OPPT
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) has been a great
success for informing the American public about the
chemicals in their communities. However, the United
States is not the only country with a publicly available
inventory of toxic chemical releases and transfers. In
fact, the number of countries which have created these
systems, or which are in various stages of developing
them, is growing each year.

The names of these inventories vary from country to
country. While in the United States this inventory is
known as the  Toxics  Release  Inventory  (TRI), in
Canada it is the National Pollutant Release Inventory
(NPRI), and the Registro de Emisiones y Transferencia
Contaminantes (RETC) in Mexico.  With so many
names addressing the same type of system, a standard
international name was selected, the Pollutant Release
and Transfer Register (PRTR).

The international  momentum on PRTRs  began
following the  United Nation's  1992 Earth Summit
(more  formally  known  as  the  United Nations
Conference  on  Environment  and Development).
Among the conclusions resulting from the conference
was the value of PRTRs hi the sound management of
chemicals, and the importance of public involvement in
environmental  decision-making.

At the time, only the United  States, with its TRI,
collected yearly data on chemical releases and transfers
and made that information available to the public.  The
Netherlands had been collecting air and water data on
a  periodic basis since the early  1980s, but only
providing aggregate data to the public. Canada was hi
the process of creating its system.

One of the proposals from the Earth Summit was the
creation of a guidance document for governments on
PRTRs. The Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), of which the United States
is an active member, agreed to undertake this task. The
process of developing this PRTR Guidance Manual for
Governments,  a  document designed to facilitate the
Right to Know concept, itself highlighted the benefits
of public involvement. In a novel approach for the
OECD,   industry,   and  other  non-governmental
organizations were heavily  involved hi the process,
providing important perspectives to the deliberations.
In fact, the speed and success at which the guidance
document was written prompted the environmental
ministers  of  the  OECD  to  issue  a  Council
Recommendation encouraging all OECD nations to
create PRTRs.

Another decision from the Earth Summit was the need
to assist industrializing nations to develop PRTRs.  The
United Nations Institute  for Training and Research
(UNITAR) took on this role. UNITAR identified three
industrializing nations  (Czech  Republic,  Egypt,
Mexico) to serve in a pilot project on PRTRs.

Using the OECD guidance manual, and a step by step
process with accompanying documents developed by
UNITAR, these countries began establishing national
PRTRs. The United States provided financial and other
forms of assistance to UNITAR on this project. With
the lessons learned from this process, UNITAR expects
to help other developing nations in the future.

A new player is the Commission for Environmental
Cooperation (CEC), an organization created by a side
agreement  to the  North  American Free  Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). Wirn PRTR systems operating,
or soon to be, in Canada, Mexico and the United States,
North America offers groundbreaking opportunities.
Release and transfer data now can be compiled between
neighboring nations.
 North America will be the first instance in which
 continent-wide PRTR data will be available.  To take
 advantage of this, the CEC is preparing two annual
 documents. One analyzes the structure of the three
 PRTR systems. A second compiles and compares the
 PRTR data from the U.S. and Canada. Mexican data
 will be included in the future. Both of these reports
                                               18 —

-------
  Issue No.
  actually build on an EPA document that looks at PRTR
  data along the U.S.-Canada border and the U.S.-Mexico
  border.  In addition, EPA's Region 5 and Environment
  Canada have prepared reports which  analyze PRTR
  data around the Great Lakes. Beyond reports, the CEC
  is also coordinating tri-national meetings to discuss
  compatibility issues  for the three PRTRs and  is
  providing  assistance  to Mexico on  its  PRTR
  development.

 Among the more recent  events  is  the  renewed
 endorsement of PRTRs at the recent meeting of the
 Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safely (IFCS).
 The IFCS is responsible for overseeing international
 progress  on the action items relating to chemicals
 management that grew out of the Earth Summit.  The
 U.S. and Mexico presented the IFCS with a  paper on
 PRTRs which  outlined future PRTR projects  and
 sought recognition  for the excellent  work already
 achieved. All the proposals in the paper were  accepted
 by the IFCS, which will probably stoke even greater
 interest from industrializing nations.

       The IFCS also encouraged the continued work
          of the existing PRTR Coordination Group.
            This group  formed  in 1996  to help
             shepherd PRTR  work  and  avoid a
              duplication of  efforts.   Members
                include the U.S. and other interested
                OECD nations, plus representatives
                 from the  OECD, the  CEC,  the
                   European  Union (EU),  and
                   UNITAR.
  With the number of existing PRTRs growing from the
  present  six (Canada, France,  Netherlands, Norway,
  United Kingdom, U.S.), and with an increasing number
  of  PRTRs under development  (Australia, Czech
  Republic, EU, Egypt, Finland, Japan, Mexico, Sweden,
  Switzerland), or under consideration (China, Hungary,
  South Africa, Vietnam), this  coordinating group is
  essential.

  Future activities will take advantage of the growing
  experience on PRTRs. The most immediate event will
  be the PRTR workshop for the Americas. Mexico will
  host this workshop in July 1997, with the assistance of
  the CEC, OECD, and UNITAR. Representatives from
  governments and  non-governmental organizations
  (NGOs)  from the nations in the Americas will attend.
  Two similar workshops already have been held in
  Australia for Asian and Pacific countries and in the
  Czech Republic for the Central and Eastern European
  nations.  In 1998, Japan will host an OECD workshop
  on PRTRs which will feature studies analyzing impacts
  to industry and the public of existing PRTRs.

  UNITAR will continue to work with industrializing
  nations, moving from the present three pilot nations to
  a new, as yet unchosen, group. Other international
  organizations also are beginning to   participate,
  including the United Nations Environment Programme,
  the World Bank, and the World Health Organization.
  With so many players bringing so many new ideas, the
  potential  uses and benefits of PRTRs will continue to
  unfold.
The Commission for Environmental Cooperation: A North American
    Approach to Environmental Concerns
    Lin Moos, National Program Chemicals Division,  OPPT
The Commission for Environmental Cooperation
(CEC)   facilitates   cooperation   and   public
participation   in    fostering   conservation,
protection,  and enhancement of the  North
American environment for the benefit of present
and future generations. This effort is particularly
important in the context of increasing economic
trade and social links between Canada, Mexico, and
the United States.

The CEC was established by the North American Free
Trade Agreement  (NAFTA)  countries  in  1994 to
             address environmental concerns  in
             North America regardless of national
             boundaries.  While the idea to create
             such a commission originated during
              the  negotiations of the NAFTA, it
              derives its formal mandate from the
              North  American   Agreement   for
             Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC,
  or the Agreement).  The Agreement creates a North
American framework whereby trade and environment-
related goals can be pursued in an open and cooperative
                                              19

-------
Chemicals in the Environment
                        Spring/Summer 1997
way and helps prevent the creation of trade distortions
or new trade barriers between the NAFTA partners.

In broad terms, the  NAAEC  sets out to protect,
conserve and improve the environment for present and
future generations by agreeing to a core set of actions
and principles, including:

•   reporting on the state of the environment;
•   effective enforcement of environmental  law;
•   improved access to environmental information;
•   striving for improvement of environmental laws
    and regulations; and
•   promoting the use of economic instruments to
    achieve environmental goals.

While a number of Resolutions have been adopted
under the  Agreement,  the  Office  of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) has been
most actively involved in Council Resolution #95-5,
Sound Management of Chemicals. The Resolution was
developed because the three countries recognized that
they must cooperate  to protect and  improve the
environment and to achieve sustainable development.
A major and shared concern are chemical  pollutants
transported across national boundaries through air and
watersheds and traded products.

Given the problems and lost opportunities that can arise
from the unsound use of chemicals, Canada, Mexico,
and the United States agreed to work cooperatively to
improve the management of chemicals while building
upon  their   respective  national,  bilateral,  and
international commitments.

The first  four substances addressed under the Sound
Management    of   Chemicals   Program    were
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, DDT, and
chlordane. Action Plans for PCBs, DDT, and chlordane
are expected  to be signed in  June 1997 by  EPA
Administrator  Browner, Sergio Marchi, Canada's
Minister of the Environment, and Julia Carabias Lillo,
Mexico's  Secretary of State for the  Environment,
Natural Resources and Fisheries. The Action Plan for
mercury will follow later in the year.

Further   information   on  the  Commission  for
Environmental Cooperation and ongoing activities under
NAAEC  can  be obtained from the CEC website  at:
http://www.cec.org
 Governments as Green Customers: Using Public Purchasing Power to
    Improve the Environment
    Eun-Sook Goidel, Pollution Prevention Division, OPPT
 The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
 has been playing an active role in an international
 forum  created  under  the   backing  of the
 Organization  for  Economic  Cooperation  and
 Development  (OECD) to facilitate information
 exchange among countries on ways government
 can use its purchasing power — at the Federal,
 state  and  local  levels  — to  achieve
 environmental improvement.

 Government purchasing  represents  a  large
 portion of most countries' economies and can
 represent, in some cases,  as much as 20% of
 the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  In the
 United  States, the  Federal   government
 purchases over $200 billion worth of goods
 and service annually. The addition of state
 and local government purchases nearly triples
 this figure.  Increasingly, policymakers hi
 many   countries  are   developing   and
 implementing innovative programs aimed at leveraging
 the public sector's tremendous purchasing power as a
 means to influence the marketplace towards greener
 products and services.

     Members  of  the  international  forum  were
     instrumental  in  setting  the  agenda  for  an
     international  conference  on  "greener"  public
     purchasing which the Government of Switzerland
     recently  sponsored.  The  conference  brought
      together over 130 participants from government,
      industry and non-government organizations —
      representing over 20 countries  as well as a
      number of international organizations, such as the
      United  Nations Development Program — to
      share   information   on   best   practices
      internationally.  The  conference highlighted a
      variety of approaches,  issues that cut across
      national boundaries, as well as future areas for
      international collaboration.
                                                20  •-

-------
 Issue No. 4
                   Public Access Information
Programs to achieve  environmental  gains  through
changes in public purchasing patterns vary widely, both
in terms of who initiates such activities and the types of
products covered (spanning from office equipment,
cleaning products,  construction materials, to. even
services).   In Denmark,  for example, the  central
government established a national strategy to "promote
sustainable product procurement." On the other hand,
in Switzerland, efforts have been much more diffuse,
with the cantons (similar to states) taking an active role
in promoting greener public purchasing in the absence
of a national policy.

The extent to which an individual country's "greener"
public purchasing programs are linked to a national
eco-labeling  schemes  also varies  across national
boundaries. Some countries, such as Germany with its
Blue Angel eco-labeling program, have close linkages.

In the U.S., a series of Presidential Executive Orders
issued by President Clinton have fueled much of the
recent green  purchasing  activity.    OPPT's own
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program is an
outgrowth of  Executive Order  12873  on Federal
Acquisition, Recycling and Waste Prevention. This
Executive Order directs the Federal government to take
a  leadership role  in  identifying and  purchasing
"greener" products and services.

Pilot efforts in "greener" public purchasing are being
undertaken by the Department of Defense (construction
materials) and the General Services Administration
 (cleaning products and latex paints), both in partnership
 with EPA.  Some very innovative programs have also
 cropped up at the state and local government levels (for
 example, by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
 the City of Santa Monica, California, respectively).

 Despite the diversity of approaches among the countries,
 many of the programs share common challenges and
 issues.  There is a general consensus among countries
 that a "greener" public purchasing program should take
 into account environmental impacts associated with a
 product's manufacture, use, and disposal, rather than just
 focusing on one aspect of the product's life cycle.

 Though a more comprehensive approach is seen as
 desirable, implementing such an approach has been a
 challenge for most  programs —  including OPPT's
 Environmentally   Preferable   Products   Program.
 However, countries are trying a variety of innovative
 methods to better integrate life cycle concepts into
 purchasing  programs and much can  be  learned  by
 sharing the experiences from these attempts.

 Tremendous environmental gains can be made through
the concerted  efforts  of national, state and local
governments to factor in environmental considerations
in their purchasing decisions.  To achieve global as well
as more local environmental improvements will require
close  collaboration   among   environmental  and
procurement experts as well as among countries so that
one country's environmental improvement is not gained
at the expense of another's.

-------
Chemicals in the Environment
                       Spring/Summer 1997
Non-Regulatory Initiatives and the Use of "Clusters" for Chemical Risk
    Reduction: An OECD Workshop
    Franklyn Hall, Chemical Engineering Branch, Economics, Exposure, and Technology
       Division, OPPT
On September  10-13, 1995, the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) held
a workshop in Crystal City, Virginia. The purpose
of this workshop was to discuss the role  of
voluntary initiatives and the use of "clusters" of
similar   chemicals   to  promote  pollution
prevention  and  cost-effective   chemical  risk
management.

OECD is a group of  the  world's
most  highly    industrialized  and
developed nations.  The  member
countries of this organization work together on
issues  such  as  trade, the  environment, and
economic policy.  In the environmental field,
OECD has worked to promote international standards
for screening level environmental information and
achieved international agreements on reducing risk
from certain chemicals such as lead.
Voluntary initiatives were identified as an effective
way to  empower private industry  in pollution
prevention and chemical risk management efforts. The
first two and a half days of the workshop consisted of
open  discussions  regarding  voluntary  initiative
programs from member countries and private industry.
These discussions helped to develop what the OECD
thinks  are important  first  steps  in  the initial
development  of a  non-regulatory chemical risk
management and pollution prevention program.

Conference participants discussed the most important
steps in building a non-regulatory program, such as
clearly identifying and understanding goals, involving
stakeholders early, developing methods of measuring
success, and ensuring a clear understanding of how a
non-regulatory program  can work with regulatory
programs. These key ingredients were identified as
necessary for the acceptance and success of voluntary
pollution prevention and chemical risk management
programs.

Recently, several OECD countries have expressed an
interest in having an open forum to consider ways to
manage chemicals through means other than chemical
by chemical.  One such means would be to consider
  clusters (that is, groups) of chemicals that are used
  for the same purpose, such as paint strippers.

 The OECD workshop also focused on using  this
  chemical "use cluster" approach as an alternative to
  the single chemical approach. The forum brought out
               issues regarding the cluster approach
               and developed a pool of information.
               This information will be considered
            by OECD member countries to improve
            their  own   chemical  management
            methodologies.

          A number of concerns surfaced during this
 forum. One concern addressed the need for member
countries  to  explore  the potential for pollution
prevention and risk management benefits of all of a
chemical's uses before taking regulatory action on a
given chemical.  Another concern was that the cluster
approach  may discourage the  risk assessment of
individual chemicals instead of promoting the  risk
assessment of cluster chemical constituents.

In response to both concerns the general feeling was
that the cluster approach should be used as a means to
collect information for better  risk-based  decision
making. Member countries decided to investigate the
different applications of the  cluster approach and to
request member countries to discuss how they are using
"cluster type"  approaches.  They also  decided to
explore the possibilities of clustering as a basis for risk-
based   assessments   and   risk-based   chemical
management.
                                               22

-------
 Issue No. 4
                Public Access Information
 Sharing Information on  New Chemicals:  The  United States/Canada Four
    Corners Agreement
    Anna Coutlakis, Chemical Control Division, OPPT
       and David DiFiore, Economics, Exposure, and Technology Division, OPPT
 Background

 In an era of downsizing and belt-tightening, companies
 are trying to increase efficiency and save resources any
 way they can. When the Canadian government revised
 its  new chemicals  review program — adding a
 domestic substances inventory and production-based
 testing  requirements  —  cost-conscious companies
 doing business in both the U.S. and Canada turned what
 first appeared as yet another hurdle to marketing their
 chemicals into a savings opportunity.

 If a company had already sent a
 chemical through  the  U.S. new
 chemicals review,  why  not  ask the
 Canadians to consider the U.S. assessment
 of  its  chemical?    If  the  Canadian
 government accepted the U.S. assessment, it
 could save the company much in time and
 testing costs.   Such a system might also
 make the Canadian reviewers' life simpler,
 since they might benefit  from  the U.S.'s
 review.

 The Agreement

 In 1994 the U.S., Canada and groups representing the
 chemical industry in both  countries initiated talks to
 establish an  information  sharing  system  for new
 chemicals that have gone through the U.S. review but
 are not yet on the Canadian chemical inventory. After
two  years  of  discussions,  the  U.S.  EPA  and
Environment  Canada  signed the  "Four  Corners
Agreement5' ("four corners" refers to the four principal
parties  involved  in  the  negotiations  and  in
 implementing  the  agreement:   the   U.S.  EPA,
Environment Canada, the U.S. chemical industry, and
the Canadian chemical industry).

Under the agreement, the parties began a two-year pilot
program in April 1996.  The goal of the pilot is to
demonstrate that information sharing saves resources—
for industry and government—and that through U.S.
sharing of its assessment, new industrial chemicals can
enter the Canadian market faster and with fewer test
costs.
 How It Works

 Under the agreement, a new chemical manufacturer
 seeking entry to the Canadian market would begin the
 information-exchange process by submitting a request
 to Environment Canada. The Canadians would then
 notify the U.S. EPA's New Chemicals Program of the
 request, which would include  information on the
 specific chemical for which information is sought and
 other relevant identifiers. Before any information can
 be released to Environment Canada, the U.S. EPA
  must receive a written waiver from the company,
    typically the U.S.-based parent of a Canadian
     subsidiary, that had submitted the chemical for
        review in the U.S.  After receipt of the
           waiver,  the EPA  would  send the
           documents  from  its  assessment to
         Environment Canada.

       The Canadians use  this  information as one
      element of their overall assessment of the new
      chemical. If they have questions about the U.S.
     review or need additional information, Canadian
     reviewers are free to contact assessors at EPA.
     Once the Canadians complete their review, they
decide whether to allow the new chemical on their
inventory, request additional  information or testing, or
deny the request for inventory status.

Whatever the outcome, Environment Canada informs
EPA of its decision.  If the Canadians have received
test data on the chemical that was not part of the U.S.
review, that information is sent to EPA, as well as any
data Environment Canada obtains in the future.

What's Happened

To date, EPA has shared information on 25 chemicals,
submitted  by  eleven  U.S. chemical   companies.
Cooperative and productive interactions between EPA
and Environment Canada bode well for the future of
this agreement. A successful Four  Corners program
not only enhances commerce between the U.S. and
Canada, but furthers international efforts to harmonize
and streamline the assessment and introduction of new
chemicals.  Both the 1992 United Nations Conference
                                              23

-------
Chemicals in the Environment
                                        Spring/Summer 1997
on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro
and  more   recent  Organizalion  for  Economic
Cooperation  and Development workshops in Paris
sought progress on the goal of harmonizing  new
chemical reviews.
                   Ultimately, the Four Corners Agreement illustrates
                   that government and industry can work together to
                   find practical solutions that promote efficiency and
                   save dollars — both American and Canadian.
Measuring Air Pollution in the Great Lakes Region
   Gary Gulezian, Acting Director, EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) are measuring the levels of many man-made
chemicals in the air in the Great Lakes area to evaluate
whether a large amount of these chemicals is getting
into the waters of the Great Lakes from the air.  The
chemicals being measured are of concern because they
are found in the fish of the Great Lakes and can pose a
health hazard to people who eat Great Lakes fish.

Some of these  chemicals are:

   polychlorinated biphenyls  (PCBs),  industrial
     chemicals  widely  used until production  was
     stopped in 1977;
                     DDT, an insecticide used for termite control until
                       it was banned in 1972;
                     mercury, a naturally occuring element often used in
                       electrical equipment and thermometers;
                     Undone, an insecticide used on food crops and
                       forests, and  to  control  lice and scabies  in
                       livestock and humans; most uses were restricted
                       in 1983;and
                     polycyclic  aromatic   hydrocarbons  (PAHs),
                       compounds emitted by combustion facilities such
                       as waste incinerators.

                  To measure these chemicals, EPA, in cooperation with
                  Environment Canada,  established a binational  air
               49-
               47-
               45-
               43-
               41
   I               I              I
     ,L. Superior           IADN
                      Master Stations
                      Satellite Stations
                  -93
-89
-85
-81
-77
                                       Longitude (W)
 Figure: Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) Monitoring Stations
                                              24

-------
fssue No. 4
                                                                    Public Access Information
monitoring network called the Integrated Atmospheric
Deposition Network (IADN). The IADN is made up of
five primary, or "master," monitoring stations, one on
each  Great Lake, and fourteen  supplemental,  or
"satellite," stations that provide additional information
(see Figure, p.24). This network is required by the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, a binational
agreement to reduce toxic chemicals in the Great
Lakes.

At each IADN site, concentrations  of chemicals are
measured in rain and snow (also called wet deposition),
airborne  particles (dry deposition),  and  airborne
vapors.  From these measurements, the amount of a
chemical  entering the lake from  the air  can be
estimated.  Since its inception in 1990, IADN has
                                                   tracked trends of chemical concentrations in air.  For
                                                   example, IADN data have shown that levels of lead
                                                   entering the Great Lakes from the air declined from
                                                   1990 to 1994. This is probably due to the removal of
                                                   lead in most vehicle fuels in the U.S. Another example
                                                   is that the level of PCBs in the air of the Great Lakes
                                                   region seems to  remain fairly  constant, perhaps
                                                   showing a slight decline, but not a large one. This is of
                                                   concern since PCBs were phased out in the 1970's, but
                                                   are still found in our environment at elevated levels.

                                                   If you would like information on IADN, please contact
                                                   the EPA project manager, Angela Bandemehr, at (312)
                                                   886-6858 or via e-mail at:
                                                   bcmdemehr.angela@epamaiL epa.gov.
The International ToxicologicaS Profiles Collection of the Office of Pollution
    Prevention & Toxics Library
    Linda Miller Poore, M.L.S., Head Librarian, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Library
       (operated for OPPT by Garcia Consulting, Inc.)

                                                   in German, but Chemical Abstracts Service registry
                                                   numbers are provided. The Library carries the English
                                                   language versions of the BUA reports.
                                                   An  older title is  the  United Nations  Environment
                                                   Programme's International Register of Potentially Toxic
                                                   Chemicals (IRPTC) collection of the Scientific Reviews
                                                   of Soviet  Literature  on Toxicity and  Hazards  of
                                                   Chemicals.  This  series  is aimed at "toxicologists,
The United States Centers for Disease Control &
Prevention (CDC), Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) publishes a useful set of
guides to the health effects of toxic chemicals in its
Toxicological Profiles series.  But other countries and
international  organizations  also  produce  similar
volumes, some of which are collected  by the U.S.
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention  and Toxics
Library and are described below.

The Government of Canada requires under its Canadian
Environmental  Protection Act (CEPA), that  the
Minister of Environment and the Minister of Health
prepare and publish assessments as to the toxicity of a
Priority Substances List, which identifies chemicals,
groups of chemicals, effluents, and wastes that may be
harmful to the environment or a danger to human
health.  The Library carries the series of Priority
Substances List Assessment Reports that seek to
determine the toxicity of the substance being examined.

The next  country-specific  titles  are  the German
Chemical  Society Advisory Committee on Existing
Chemicals     of    Environmental    Relevance
(Beratergremium  fur   Umweltrelevante  Altstoffe
(BUA)) report series which utilize published scientific
literature as well as  data from  industry.  A list of
available titles is included on their website. The site is
                                                     Chemical Information Contained in BUA
                                                     Reports (BUA-Stoffberichte)

                                                     A standard BUA report includes the following sections:

                                                      Summary and Conclusions
                                                      Recommendations
                                                      Chemistry
                                                      Physical Properties
                                                      Emission into the Environment during Production
                                                      Processing
                                                      Use and Waste Disposal
                                                      Environmental Occurrence
                                                      Environmental Behavior
                                                      Ecotoxicity
                                                      Toxicity to Warm-Blooded Animals
                                                      Substance-Specific Legal Regulations
                                                      a Reference/Literature list
                                                25

-------
 Chemicals in the Environment
                                                                          Spring/Summer 1997
hygienists and those responsible for evaluation and
control of harmful effects of chemicals to human health
and the environment."  Published in the  1980s, this
English language series is now primarily valuable as a
historical resource.

The   European    Centre    for
Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of
Chemicals     (ECETOC),
headquartered    in   Brussels,
Belgium, produces three peer-
reviewed series:  Monographs,
Technical Reports, and the Joint
Assessment    of    Commodity
Chemicals (JACC) Report series.
Commodity chemicals are defined as
produced in large tonnage by several companies and
having widespread  and  multiple uses."  (Note: The
JACC series/reports cover only the chemical itself and
not products in which it may occur as an impurity.)

Finally, the International Programme on Chemical
Safety (IPCS), under the joint sponsorship of the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the
International Labour Organisation, and World Health
Organization (WHO), contributes two titles to the
                                        "those
OPPT Library toxicological profiles  collection: the
Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) chemical profile
monographs and companion Health and Safety Guides.
Besides chemical-specific volumes, the EHC  series
includes titles devoted to evaluating toxicological
methodologies for genetic, neurotoxic, teratogenic and
         nephrotoxic    effects;    epidemiological
          guidelines; evaluation of short-term tests for
           carcinogens; biomarkers; and  effects on
            specific populations such as the elderly.
             The  target  audience  for  the  EHC
              monographs   are    national    and
               international authorities responsible for
               conducting  risk  assessments   and
               making risk management  decisions,
while the less technical Health and Safety Guides are
meant to provide practical information on how to safely
use chemicals and avoid creating environmental health
hazards.

For further information on borrowing any of these titles
through Interlibrary Loan,   contact   your   local
library  or  the OPPT  Library.  Telephone:  (202)
260-3944;    FAX   (202)    260-4659;    E-mail:
library-tsca@epamail.epa.gov
internet addresses for organizations and publications listed above

Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry         http://aisd[rI.afsdncdckgavi8080Msdrliome.Iitmi
   (ATSDR)                      .

Environment Canada
   Commercial Chemicals Website
   Priority Substances Assessment Program..	

European Centre for EcotoxicologyandToxicology of
   Chemicals (ECETOC)

German Chemical Society {GeseHsehaft Deatscher
   Chemiker) Advisory Committee an Existing Chemicals
   of Environmental Relevance (Beratergremium Sir
   Umweltrelevante Altstofie (BUA»

International Programme on Chemical Safety (iPCS)

Scientific Reviews of Soviet Literature on Tenacity and
   Hazards of Chemicals (UNEP/IRPTC)
                                                    fottp://www.ec.gc»ea/ccebl/£ng/ccw»htm
                                                   ,http;//www.ec.gCKca/ccebl/eag/psap.hte

                                                    Bttp://dbl.nihs,go.jp/ecetoc/


                                                    http;//www,gdch,de/proj ekte/stofib-htra
                                                    &ttp://dbl.iuhs.go.Jp/ecetoc/section/Sl.&tml
                                                26

-------

-------
> 3 3
> o> £2.

 •? —
 -•> CD
 |s
 < O)
 gj. co
 Jo
< > m c
of 
o
"D

I
a
o
=1
                O m -o -n
                     CD fl)

                     il
                     TI oj_

-------